Origin of Topsy Turvy Dolls

 ©  Kathy Duncan, 2022

The popular myth concerning the origin of topsy-turvy dolls was created in the later part of the 20th century and continues to persist in spite of a lack of documentation. All of these creation stories theorize that topsy-turvy dolls originated on southern plantations in the early 19th century. As early as 1982, Wendy Lavitt floated the idea that topsy-turvy dolls were created by slave mothers so that their daughters could have a white doll to play with. Then the doll could be flipped to a black doll if an overseer or master was near. In 1983, Karen Sanchez-Eppler theorized that the dolls were based on Harriett Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, with the black doll representing the character of Topsy and the white doll representing Eva. Twenty years later, in 2008, Kimberly Wallace-Sanders speculated that the dolls were used to train slave girls for their future roles as caregivers of white children.

All of these ideas are based on speculation and what one writer termed "imagining." All of these ideas are now being recycled as fact by a new generation of doll historians. Primary sources are noticeably missing.

A primary source is a document that is created at the time an event happens. Secondary sources are created at some later time and are often a discussion of the primary source. Theories that are created without grounding in a primary source are also secondary sources. Unfortunately, as time goes on, secondary sources take on a life of their own and are too often cited as if they were primary sources. 

When we talk about objects that might have been created in the antebellum south by slaves, many might question what primary sources could be available to document them. The usual primary sources that a genealogist might use like the U.S. census, birth and death certificates, marriage records, wills and probates, land deeds, and family bibles are not particularly helpful in seeking the origin of topsy-turvy dolls or any other doll. As it turns out, there are other primary sources that could prove beneficial if they were available. For example, letters, diaries, and photographs might exist in the archive holdings of states, universities, museums, and libraries. Newspaper clippings might shed some light. The most readily available primary sources exist in the form of thousands of pages of interviews that were done with former slaves as the work of the WPA in the 1930s. These documents are housed in the National Archives but are widely available in print form and are known loosely as "slave narratives." They reveal that while a few slave girls had dolls, none of them that I have found so far are described in a way that would indicate they were topsy-turvy dolls. Given the uniqueness of topsy-turvy dolls, if any of these formerly enslaved women had possessed one, she would have surely described it in her interview. By the 1930s, these women had no reason to fear any consequences from having had such a doll.  

Excerpts from 23 women's interviews can be read here. 

Newspapers can also function as primary sources since they indicate when something first appeared in common usage. 

If we turn to newspapers, the first reference to a topsy-turvy doll appeared in the Carson City, Nevada Morning Appeal in December 1893. The dolls were being sold in conjunction with a book titled, Topsys and Turvys. The doll was advertised as "the queerest things you ever saw. You get two dolls or two books for one price." This suggests that people would not have seen a topsy-turvy doll before.

Since the dolls were sold alongside the books, it is helpful to know more about the books. This is the part of the equation that doll historians have neglected. Topsys and Turvys was written by Peter Newell and first published in 1893. Newell had observed one of his children looking at a book upside and decided that it should be possible for a child to look at a book from both directions and have it make sense. In his Topsys and Turvys book, the images are different from each direction so that a farmer becomes a pig and a shepherd becomes a goat. 

Newspapers of the day praised the books for their charm and cleverness:

So far, no other reference to the dolls has turned up in 1893, so it may be that some enterprising person saw an opportunity to create a doll inspired by the books and to capitalize on them. It is a shame that it did not occur to that person to copyright their unique doll. Also, no earlier reference to topsy-turvy dolls has turned up in newspaper searches. There is no way of knowing what these first topsy-turvy dolls depicted.

The next reference to topsy-turvy dolls appeared in The Daily Picayune of New Orleans in 1896. Note that Mrs. Crouch attended the reunion of the WCTU in Chicago and reported on her visit to several reformatories. She focused on the work of the Erring Woman's Refuge in Chicago, where the inmates had raised funds by dressing 7,000 topsy-turvy dolls for Christmas sales. She was asked what a topsy-turvey doll was and replied that "it was a rag doll, with one end having the face of child, and when turned down the other had the face of an old black mammy. Thus, whichever way the little one chose to turn her doll it was sure to be dressed." This suggests, again, that the topsy-turvy dolls were not widely known.

This is also the first reference I've found that indicates a topsy-turvy doll in which one doll was black and the other was white. The Erring Women's Refuge was dedicated to reforming fallen women. 

In 1899, Dewitt Bouton of Ithaca, New York patented a topsy-turvy doll. His patent was specifically for a doll with "the head of a white and civilized person" on one end and "the head of a colored or uncivilized person" on the opposite end. Were the dolls Bouton's original design with the inmates of the Erring Woman's Refuge dressing them, or was Bouton seizing the opportunity to hold the first patent on the doll? The census does not reveal Bouton to be involved in any phase of doll manufacture. 

Albert Bruckner of Jersey City patented a doll face technique that was used on topsy-turvey's. His patent appears on some dolls and is dated 1901. However, I've only found the record for a doll face patent that Bruckner took out in 1921. On the 1900 census, Bruckner was a lithographer, and on the 1910 census he was the proprietor of a doll manufacturing company, so it makes sense that his patent dates to 1901. Why the official patent record only dates to 1921 is a mystery at this point. He died in 1926, so maybe he wanted to leave the potential for income to his wife. A few doll historians have mistakenly claimed that Bruckner created the topsy-turvy doll and held the first patent on it.

In 1904, a Topsy Truvy doll was advertised in Boston, Massachusetts. Notice that the dolls are named Topsy, after the Topsys and  Turveys book, and Betsy - not Topsy and Eva.

In 1905, The Washington Times of Washington D.C. carried an advertisement for a Topsy Turvy doll referred to as "Black Diana" and a "fair maiden."

By 1907, more imaginative topsy-turvy dolls were being created. The Denver Colorado paper carried an advertisement for a topsy-turvy doll that paired Little Red Riding Hood with the Big Bad Wolf. The wolf had the "fiercest kind of growl." That growl would have either been produced by an imaginative child or a noise box inside the wolf. 

In December 1908, the Boston Sunday Herald ran an article about the choice of toys for Christmas. The author noted that among the dolls there was "a new kind of rag doll" - the topsy-turvy doll. The author went on to describe the doll in some detail. This suggests that eight years after Mrs. Crouch described topsy-turvy dolls to her Chicago audience, they still were not commonly known. 

A commercially printed, cut-and-stuff Topsy Turvy doll appeared as early as 1913. Rochschild, Kohn, & Co. advertised a stock of patterns in the Baltimore Sun: 

A commercial pattern for the dolls was produced in the early part of the Great Depression. This 1933 pattern was from Alice Brooks:

This 1939 pattern, from Laura Wheeler, was being produced by the end of the Depression: 

In the 1940s, Ann Audubon offered this pattern for 15 cents:  

In the 1950s, Laura Wheeler was still producing topsy-turvy patterns. This toddler version is a cuddly contrast to the more adult-looking version of the 1930s.

In 1972, the "Dippity-Flip Doll" was created. The addition of a third head and change of name may have allowed for someone to file a new patent while also avoiding the violation of a previous patent. This particular doll may be why many young adults refer to topsy-turvy dolls as "flip dolls." This particular flip doll was only on the market for two or three years. 

Another Lost Doll in Providence, RI

©  Kathy Duncan, 2022

Many dolls have been lost over time, but few have merited a reward for their return. On 28 July 1866 The Providence Evening Press of Providence, Rhode Island ran this advertisement for a cloth doll that had been lost on the 13th. 

We can't tell who the doll belonged to or how much the reward for its return would be. All we can determine is that it was special enough to its little owner to prompt a reward for its return. Nothing about this advertisement suggests that it was one of Izannah Walker's dolls except for the fact that it was a cloth doll. Still, it's interesting to note that Izannah was living in the area, making cloth dolls, at the same time this doll was lost. 

Sunny Suzy Washing Machine

           ©  Kathy Duncan, 2022

A recent social media post contained a cream and green-colored Sunny Suzy Washing Machine with its precious detachable wringer. That post drew a lot of responses with assertions that ranged from it being a salesman's sample to a miniature. Instead, the Sunny Suzy washing machine is a child's toy, manufactured by Wolverine, that first appeared on the scene in about 1933. The oldest advertisement that I could find for it was dated Friday, 1 December 1933, and appeared in the Watertown Daily Times.

By 1934, the Sunny Suzy Washing Machine was advertised in papers across the nation. It came in two sizes: giant and baby. This is from a Walgreens advertisement in Chicago:

In San Antonio, the Sunny Suzy was sold in combination with a real wringer washer. It might have actually been a merchant's premium in this instance. Notice that the child's version has only a passing resemblance to the adult model. 

While the cream and green colors of many of the early Sunny Suzy Washing Machines suggest that it dates to the 1920s, this advertisement from 1935 makes it clear that those colors were being used well into the 1930s:

The Woodwell's Fall and Holiday Catalog, 1936, published by the Joseph Woodwell Co. of Pittsburg, PA,  featured several Sunny Suzy Washing Machine sets. The price for each was determined by the size of the Sunny Suzy washer and the number of pieces. Note that a wash tub was still needed with the washing machine, probably in order to transfer the wet clothes into it between the wash and rinse. 

This style of wringer washer was advertised as late as 1948:

Wolverine marketed a wide variety of toys under the Sunny Suzy label. Prior to the washing machine, they marketed a "laundry set" that included a wash tub, rub-board, and clothesline:

My own Sunny Suzy is missing its detached wringer. I had hoped to eventually find a replacement for it, but so far, that has not happened.

A view from the top reveals that it is unlike a real wringer washer: 

Still, the Sunny Suzy Washing Machine is a fun piece and would be right at home with a large doll.

Lost: A Painted Cloth Doll

          ©  Kathy Duncan, 2022

 I am still trying out different generic keywords in my search for more information on Izannah Walker and her dolls. This interesting advertisement bubbled up in my latest search.

I am struck by this family's efforts to recover their child's doll. They went to the time and expense to run a classified advertisement in the New Bedford Evening Standard and then offered a reward. This advertisement would have cost a dollar and could have run three times although I have only found one appearance for it.

In 1861, one dollar was the equivalent of $33.22 in 2022. 

I can well imagine a young mother or nanny, juggling several packages and a small child, dropping this doll on the street. Or perhaps, the doll slipped from the child's pram, unnoticed until it was too late. Was there a child crying for this lovey every night, or had the family gone to such great pains and expense to acquire a one-of-a-kind doll that they were willing to spare no expense to get it back?

Of course, the most striking portion of this advertisement is the description of the doll: "a painted cloth Doll." This doll was certainly in the style of Izannah's dolls, but there is no way to know if she made it. Of the small number of Izannah Walker dolls in existence, a handful of them has provenance. From that small group, several belonged to little girls who lived in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and who were given their dolls around 1860, give or take a couple years. That made it impossible for me to just scroll by this little advertisement.

How this small group of dolls made it to New Bedford, MA from Providence, RI, or Somerset, MA is a matter of speculation. Dixie Redmond has theorized that Elizabeth Coggeshall Pope, born in New Bedford in 1857, received her Izaanah Walker doll from her grandparents who had connections to Providence, Rhode Island although they also lived in New Bedford at the time of her birth. It may be that once a family acquired an Izannah doll, other parents saw it and purchased one through word-of-mouth for their own children. There could have easily been enough family and friends traveling between New Bedford and Providence for the purchases to be arranged and the dolls delivered. 

The only clue in the advertisement that could lead to more information is the family's address, so my next step was to find out all I could about 48 South Sixth Street. 

It had sold in 1859:

The 1864 New Bedford Evening Standard provides the best clue:

The lady of the house was Mrs. James Robinson. In 1867, the family was searching for a nanny:

And a few months later, also in 1867, the house sold again:

Neither of the two house sales mentions James Robinson, and there are too many James Robinsons on the 1860 census to pinpoint the family since street addresses were not included. 

However, the 1865 New Bedford, MA City Directory shows James Robinson living at 48 South Sixth Street. Most importantly, he was working for the W. A. Robinson & Co.:

While James Robinson can be found in residence in the house at 48 South Sixth Street, I did not find him purchasing or selling that property in the land deeds for Bristol County, Massachusetts, so he was probably "letting" the property.

James Robinson was the son of W.A. Robinson of Providence, Rhodes Island. He had moved from Providence, Rhode Island to New Bedford, Massachusetts, several years before to open a branch of his father's business, W.A. Robinson & Co., which manufactured soap, candles, and oil made from whale oil:

The 1870 census features the following James Robinson family that is an excellent fit for the family residing at 48 South Sixth Street from at least 1861 to 1867:

This James Robinson is an oil merchant, so he is probably the same James Robinson who opened a branch of W.A. Robinson & Co. in New Bedford. Daughter Carrie or Caroline is just old enough to have had a doll in 1861. Son William A. Robinson (named after his grandfather) would have been about two when the family was advertising for a nurse. Note that there is still a nurse in residence in 1870. There is a large enough household staff to free up wife Anna A. Robinson to participate in civic duties like the National Sailors Association. 

Caroline Robinson was born on 7 September 1860 in New Bedford, Massachusetts. She would have been nine and a half months old when the family at 48 South Sixth Street was frantically searching for a lost painted cloth doll. She was just about old enough to become attached to a favorite doll but not really big enough to keep a firm grip on one at all times. Her family had the means and contacts to purchase one of Izannah's dolls, and when it was lost, advertise for its return and offer a reward.

After her young father's sudden death of an aortic aneurysm in 1875, Caroline, her mother, and her brother moved to Providence, Rhode to live. They can be found there by 1880 on the census. 

Caroline Robinson never married. In her senior years, she traveled abroad extensively and frequently renewed her passport. Her photograph was attached to her 1921 passport:

Caroline Robinson

Caroline died on 21 October 1929. Like Izannah Walker, Caroline Robinson and her parents are buried in Swan Point Cemetery. 

An interesting coincidence - Carolina had an uncle named Joseph Pope Balch. Could there have been a family connection between Carolina Robinson and Elizabeth Coggeshall Pope? 

Izannah and Jane H. Walker's Inheritance

          ©  Kathy Duncan, 2022

Izannah Walker and her sister Jane H. Walker inherited a house with property in Somerset, Massachusetts, from their Uncle Anthony and Aunt Jane H. (Swasey) Hintz. Jane Hintz was their mother's sister, and Jane H. Walker was her namesake. The Hintz's had purchased the property from Jane Hintz's father Jerathmael Swasey on 1 October 1819. The deed stipulated that Swasey was to have use of the buildings on the property for the remainder of his life. This suggests two things: Anthony Hintz and Jane H. Swasey had married by 1 October 1819 and they were living with her parents. 

One version of the oral tradition about Izannah Walker is that when her mother died in 1824, her father sent her and her siblings to live with the Swaseys. Another version is that when her father Gilbert died in 1825, they were sent to live with the Swaseys. 

It seems likely that the elder Swaseys were the initial caregivers of the Walker orphans. Jane's husband Capt. Anthony Hintz was frequently at sea and like other captain's wives, Jane accompanied him. How often she traveled with him is unknown, but being childless, she may have frequently gone with him. This includes the time period immediately following the death of Gilbert Walker, who died in May 1825. On 12 December 1825, 40-year-old Anthony Hintz and 29-year-old Jane Hintz were listed on the manifest of the Brig Monroe. This newspaper notice provides the information that Capt. Anthony Hintz had recently been the master of the William & Jane. 

The William & Jane had been wrecked at Turks Island on October 28, 1825, when it was several times driven back out to sea until finally its keel was knocked off. The passengers and crew were rescued by boats from the shore. Jane H. (Swazey) Hintz would have been among those rescued. 

It's impossible to know if Jane continued her adventures with her husband or if the responsibility of her elderly parents and young nieces would have discouraged her from continuing her travels.

Captain Antony Hintz was still putting out to sea in 1836 when yet another of his ships was lost at sea. His ship Atlantic was wrecked on the rocks on Borman's Key, one of the Perry Islands, filling with water in just three hours.

 

Capt. Hintz died in 1839. His will noted that he was of bad health, so he was not lost at sea. He left the Swasey property to his wife Jane with the stipulation that after her death it was to pass to her nieces Izannah and Jane H. Walker.

An 1858 map of Somerset, Massachusetts provides the location of the Swazey/Hintz house on Main Street:

A close-up of the property that Jane Hintz inherited from her husband:

This map also shows the distance between the Main Street house and the house that Izannah and Jane purchased later on South Street:

An 1871 map of Somerset provides a much better view of the property's location and reveals that Jane also owned the property directly across the road in front of her house. There is also the indication that while narrow, that additional property offered an unobstructed view of the Taunton River.

Then there is this 1877 Bird's Eye View of the house, which is very much like the house as it looks today.

The Swazey/Hintz/ house on Main Street:

When Jane H. (Swasey) Hintz died in 1872, the property was passed to Izannah F. Walker and Jane H. Walker. The census indicates that like her Aunt Jane Hintz, Jane H. Walker continued to have tenants in the Main Street house. This would have given Jane and Izannah Walker incomes from both the Main Street house and the South Street house. When Izannah died in 1888, she left a portion of her inheritance from Anthony Hintz to her sister Ann R. Smith and her remaining property in Somerset, Massachusetts to her sister Jane H. Walker. This map from 1895, shows the house, currently located at 373 Main Street, in Jane H. Walker's name:

In 1887, the I.O.O.F held their festival on the lawn of Miss Jane Walker. This article, which appeared in the Fall River Daily Evening News on 2 September 1887, bemoans the fact that Somerset did not have a park for such gatherings. That left people gathering on Jane's "lawn," sidewalks, the steps of houses, and the doorways of stores. Jane's "lawn" was probably the lot across the street from her house. 

The situation did not change and groups continued to gather on Jane's property for several more years. 

Jane Hintz Walker died in the Main St house on 6 October 1899:

After Jane Walker's death, her heirs continued to own the house for several years. It was still owned by the family when this notice about putting a new fence around the property appeared in the Fall River Daily Evening News on 1 April 1902.

On 29 September 1905, the Fall River Daily Evening News noted the improvements being made in Somerset, especially along Main Street. Jane Walker's property had undergone the most striking transformation:

In 1912, Jane Walker's house was still being rented out by her heirs:

When Dolls Were Weaponized

         ©  Kathy Duncan, 2022

I have spent the last couple of years reading period articles about doll manufacturing processes and factory conditions as well as the vocabulary associated with dolls. Occasionally, articles surface that reveal instances when dolls have been used in what we now call culture wars. I have hesitated to post the negative side of doll history, but I think that ultimately we can still enjoy our antique dolls while knowing that they were sometimes used for a nefarious political agenda. It is not too extreme to say that dolls have been weaponized in some instances.

During the Christmas season of 1912, newspapers across the United States ran an article expressing bemusement over what was viewed as an odd statement coming from a German official. From our 21st-century point of view, the message is bone-chilling, and the idea that brunette dolls were sold to Germans for evil purposes is just beyond comprehension. This is a copy from the Philadelphia Inquirer of 29 December 1912, but it is the exact same text that was duplicated by other papers: 

Transcript:

"German Wants Fair Dolls

Calls Dark Puppets 'Instinct Violating' - Desires all Blondes

BERLIN, Dec. 28 - Some serious attention and not a little amusement has been argued by the latest published warning lest Germans lose their pride of race. Christmas shoppers were urged seriously to avoid the brunette type in purchasing dolls for the rising generation. The writer said that the children should be supplied with Teutonic blondes. The fabrication of dolls, he asserted, had passed into the hands of persons whose influence was along lines foreign to the German people. They did not make dolls respecting the German ideal of feminine beauty, but rather representing types that embodied the ideas and ideals of the makers. The change had been greatly in favor of the brunette type.

'Naturally,' he added naively, 'those members of our folk who depart from the blonde type are not therefore the less worthy, but we recognize the value of an inborn racial unity for the whole folk and its culture, and desire at least in the representations of our ideals to take this into account. Therefore one should reject these instinct-violating dolls, no matter whether they are offered to us with evil purpose or not.'"

The direct audience for this piece is the German shopper, with the primary message being to buy only blonde dolls. The subtext is that parents should not allow their children to have anything but blonde dolls or risk being guilty of lacking "pride of race." The indirect audience is the German doll maker, with the primary message being to manufacture only blonde dolls. The subtext is that manufacturers who produce brunette dolls are guilty of offering something evil to little German children and will shortly be deemed "less worthy." 

While blonde dolls represented the official German ideal, the government official who made these statements either knew nothing of the manufacturing process of their dolls or chose to ignore the most ironic aspect. Those golden blonde tresses that were so highly valued did not begin that way. Just a year before, a U.S. newspaper reported the process that Germans used to make blonde doll wigs. They were importing human hair from China, extracting the natural color, and dying it blonde!

A small portion of an article entitled, "Christmas Dolls," published in the Stamford, Connecticut Daily Advocate on 14 December 1911, related the German's wig making process: